Need Advice - 2008 Mac Pro 8 core good deal?

[zepharus]

Is this a good deal? or if money isnt the issue would I be better served getting the 2009 Quad or Octo?

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/103/snag0048.png (http://img53.imageshack.us/i/snag0048.png/)

[iBookG4user]

Here (http://barefeats.com/nehal03.html) are some benchmarks of the Mac Pros so you can see some numbers :)

[Loa]

Is this a good deal?


Depends on if you *really* need 8 cores. My bet is that computers with a lot of cores will always be limited by the large numbers of apps/algorithms that just cannot be multi-threaded.

So if you know that you'll be using apps that can handle lots of cores, then go ahead. Otherwise, the Nehalem (2009) quad at 2.93GHz will be less expensive and more powerful.

Loa

[bigbird]

That's a lot of money for outdated technology. Additional RAM for that is not cheap either. DDR3 is much cheaper for the '09 MP's. You'll immediately need much more HD storage as well. Count on another $500 for more RAM and HD's.

[lannister80]

That seems too expensive. You're paying a huge premium for the 3.2GHz chips.

I'd find a 8x2.8GHz 2008 on eBay and grab it. I picked one up in March 2009 (with 2+ years of AppleCare still left on it) for about $2300.

[hehejames]

That seems too expensive. You're paying a huge premium for the 3.2GHz chips.

I'd find a 8x2.8GHz 2008 on eBay and grab it. I picked one up in March 2009 (with 2+ years of AppleCare still left on it) for about $2300.


Dude... What are you smoking?

The 8-core 3.2Ghz used to be a $5,000 machine vs the 2.8Ghz was $2,800 NEW

[hehejames]

Is this a good deal? or if money isnt the issue would I be better served getting the 2009 Quad or Octo?

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/103/snag0048.png (http://img53.imageshack.us/i/snag0048.png/)

That's super deal!!! I heard the same machine was going for $3,800 or $3,900 until last week.

[ehlfg]

It was around $3800 at the Apple Store just two days ago. I know because I was checking around for pricing over the weekend. BH Photo Video appears to have a non-refurbished version of this model (along with 4 GB extra RAM and Parallels OEM) for $3,589.00.

I wound up ordering an open box (last one) for around $2800 from PowerMax. Was trying to decide between it and the 2009 2.66 Quad (a couple of hundred bucks less), but decided to go with the extra cores and RAM slots.

[hehejames]

It was around $3800 at the Apple Store just two days ago. I know because I was checking around for pricing over the weekend. BH Photo Video appears to have a non-refurbished version of this model (along with 4 GB extra RAM and Parallels OEM) for $3,589.00.

I wound up ordering an open box (last one) for around $2800 from PowerMax. Was trying to decide between it and the 2009 2.66 Quad (a couple of hundred bucks less), but decided to go with the extra cores and RAM slots.

Nice! How do you like your new system so far?

Anyways, it looks like Apple is pushing their final batch of 3.2Ghz inventories out the door - whoever interested on the last year's top of the line model should go grab them now and take advantage of the price.

[ehlfg]

Nice! How do you like your new system so far?

Hasn't gotten here yet! It should be here tomorrow. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it is OK. PowerMax apparently sold the system to someone else, who then returned it. It's supposed to be under warranty, so hopefully any problems can be fixed.

[nanofrog]

It was around $3800 at the Apple Store just two days ago. I know because I was checking around for pricing over the weekend. BH Photo Video appears to have a non-refurbished version of this model (along with 4 GB extra RAM and Parallels OEM) for $3,589.00.

I wound up ordering an open box (last one) for around $2800 from PowerMax. Was trying to decide between it and the 2009 2.66 Quad (a couple of hundred bucks less), but decided to go with the extra cores and RAM slots.
Very nice choice IMO. :D

Much better for RAID installs, and the performance of the '09 Octad's just don't justify getting them (too pricey in comparison).

[bearcatrp]

Grab a 2.8 refurb for 2399.00. Only a .4 difference in spped. Use the extra cash for ram and hard drives.

[nanofrog]

Grab a 2.8 refurb for 2399.00. Only a .4 difference in spped. Use the extra cash for ram and hard drives.
It would depend on specific use. Some tasks will benefit from higher clocks than cores, as they may not be capable of being multi-threaded. ;)

I'm not aware of the OP's intended useage, so it's impossible to say if the 2.8 or 3.2 is a better choice. But the '08 vs. '09 reasoning is another matter. :eek: :p

[Tesselator]

It would depend on specific use. Some tasks will benefit from higher clocks than cores, as they may not be capable of being multi-threaded. ;)

I'm not aware of the OP's intended useage, so it's impossible to say if the 2.8 or 3.2 is a better choice. But the '08 vs. '09 reasoning is another matter. :eek: :p

Agree. 2009 is a generally better system - it's just silly pricing.
Price|Performance ratio wise, 2008 machines look MUCH better
to me. And the 3.2 is a screamer! The 3.2 right around the $3K
mark is a perfect price point too! Yummy!

To beat it in most things one must select the the 2009 2.93 Octad
which is like $6k :( And even then the 2008 3.2 will be faster at
some things. The two are actually very close.


.

[CaptainChunk]

That's a lot of money for outdated technology. Additional RAM for that is not cheap either. DDR3 is much cheaper for the '09 MP's. You'll immediately need much more HD storage as well. Count on another $500 for more RAM and HD's.

Perhaps outdated by computer standards, but still more than competent... A comparable 2009 8-core (hmmm...2.93GHz) costs thousands more. And I call shenanigans on memory pricing. I don't know where you're getting that DDR3 ECC DIMMs are much cheaper than DDR2 DCC FB-DIMMs, because really, they're not. 32GB on a 2008 MP is $912.99 versus $1,199.99 for the 2009 MP at OWC.

And just for argument's sake, 16GB (8x2GB) DIMMs: $379.99 (2008) versus $325.99 (2009). Okay, the 2009 memory is cheaper in this case, but not as significantly as you make it seem.

The point is that you're saving considerable money versus something that's only marginally faster SOMETIMES.

2009 models come with bigger hard drives and more memory, but something tells me that a $70 tops hard drive and $130 worth of memory doesn't make up for the fact that the higher-clock Nehalem chips are obscenely overpriced.

[Genghis Khan]

The 3.2GHz has a huge premium over the 2.8GHz for not the much of a performance advantage...

it's only worth it to people who, at the time, could justify additional thousands in cost in returned revenue from the extra speed. if you're in this catagory, you should go with the new 2.93GHz Mac Pro.

If you're not in that catagory, wait for a 2.8GHz to show up or go with a Nehalem of some sort.

[lannister80]

Dude... What are you smoking?

The 8-core 3.2Ghz used to be a $5,000 machine vs the 2.8Ghz was $2,800 NEW
Like I said, you're paying a huge premium for the 3.2GHz chips. Sacrifice .4GHz and save a ton of $.

[Tesselator]

0.4 GHz = 400 MHz x 8 = 3.2 Ghz = 3,200 MHz

<strokes long beard>

[Genghis Khan]

0.4 GHz = 400 MHz x 8 = 3.2 Ghz = 3,200 MHz

<strokes long beard>

For the same price he can get a 2.26GHz Nehalem Octad

3.2GHz x 8 = 25.6GHz

2.26GHz x 8 x 2 (hyperthreading) = 36.16GHz

*strokes longer beard*


so if he's doing multi-threaded stuff, he goes for the new Nehalem...if he's doing single threaded stuff, he should go for the older Harpertown. If that is the case, then he's paying ~$800-900 more for 0.4GHz...

[zmttoxics]

0.4 GHz = 400 MHz x 8 = 3.2 Ghz = 3,200 MHz

<strokes long beard>

Thats not how that works and you know it.


The 3.2 is a good machine, but so is the 2.8. Your decision depends on the size of your wallet IMHO. But really, I would get the 2.26 over it just because its newer. :)

[zmttoxics]

For the same price he can get a 2.26GHz Nehalem Octad

3.2GHz x 8 = 25.6GHz

2.26GHz x 8 x 2 (hyperthreading) = 36.16GHz

*strokes longer beard*


so if he's doing multi-threaded stuff, he goes for the new Nehalem...if he's doing single threaded stuff, he should go for the older Harpertown. If that is the case, then he's paying ~$800-900 more for 0.4GHz...

Thats still not how that works.

[Genghis Khan]

^yes, hyperthreading is not exactly double (i think it's 1.8 times or something)...but the point made is the same -> for 3d rendering, i would rather a 2.26GHz Nehalem over a 3.2GHz Harpertown

However, for Photoshop, it's the other way round...

[Tesselator]

Thats not how that works and you know it.


It is if we're talking about potential. :) A kind of "horse power" - you know?

HT increase is 0% ~ 20% about. So that would be 1.2x. No way you're getting 1.8. :p

[Trev311]

Like I said, you're paying a huge premium for the 3.2GHz chips. Sacrifice .4GHz and save a ton of $.

It might be worth noting that the Mac Pro in question also has 2 superdrives and the 8800gt which would make the price difference from a single superdrive and standard ATI card less. So not quite the huge 800-900 dollar premium

[Trev311]

if money isnt the issue would I be better served getting the 2009 Quad or Octo?


If money is no object then clearly the 2009 2.93GHZ Octo would be the clear winner. Most of what is being discussed in this thread revolves around price/performance ratios. The 2009 would be able to match the 2008 3.2 GHZ model on most things and beat it on a few (especially memory intensive tasks!). However as many have stated (myself and others in this thread included) the 2009 Mac Pro pricing is absolutely horrid compared to a year ago.

[nanofrog]

Thats not how that works and you know it.


The 3.2 is a good machine, but so is the 2.8. Your decision depends on the size of your wallet IMHO. But really, I would get the 2.26 over it just because its newer. :)
With the current state of software, the 3.2GHz Harpertown is a faster chip than the Nehalem 2.26GHz (both systems being Octads). The faster clock works in it's favor on single threaded apps, and even on multi-threaded in many cases, as the architecture changes that give the Nehalem an improvement, aren't hit and sustained at max (I.e. cache and memory throuputs).

If the usage can in fact run the cache and memory throughput rates at or near the max, and in a sustained manner, then it may swing in the Nehalem's favor, but would need to be a faster clock to beat the 3.2GHz Harpertown. At least the 2.66GHz Nehalem to about match it, leaving the 2.93Ghz variant as the only one offered that could beat it consistently at such usage.

Unfortunately, given the Octad 2.93 pricing, it's substantially higher than what 3.2 Harpertown Octads can be had for. So to me, the 3.2's have a large advantage. ;) Faster + cheaper. Hard combination to overlook. :D :p

[Tesselator]

With the current state of software, the 3.2GHz Harpertown is a faster chip than the Nehalem 2.26GHz (both systems being Octads). The faster clock works in it's favor on single threaded apps, and even on multi-threaded in many cases, as the architecture changes that give the Nehalem an improvement, aren't hit and sustained at max (I.e. cache and memory throuputs).

If the usage can in fact run the cache and memory throughput rates at or near the max, and in a sustained manner, then it may swing in the Nehalem's favor, but would need to be a faster clock to beat the 3.2GHz Harpertown. At least the 2.66GHz Nehalem to about match it, leaving the 2.93Ghz variant as the only one offered that could beat it consistently at such usage.

Unfortunately, given the Octad 2.93 pricing, it's substantially higher than what 3.2 Harpertown Octads can be had for. So to me, the 3.2's have a large advantage. ;) Faster + cheaper. Hard combination to overlook. :D :p


And it won't ever happen either. I think it would be so funny to see the OS alone, a file copy, or a selection in PS taking 100% (or even 50%) of all cores. Hehehe... Nope, some operations are demanding, others are not. Most are not. And that's the way it's going to stay for the foreseeable future.

[nanofrog]

And it won't ever happen either. I think it would be so funny to see the OS alone, a file copy, or a selection in PS taking 100% (or even 50%) of all cores. Hehehe... Nope, some operations are demanding, others are not. Most are not. And that's the way it's going to stay for the foreseeable future.
For the most part, absolutely. :)

In a few rare cases, if the usage pattern can exceed what the FSB on the Harpertown machines can do, then the Nehalem will be faster. Server uses have the potential, not much else. Hence it's primary goal (from some of what I recall reading), as stated by Intel: Server performance. ;) :p

[Tesselator]

For the most part, absolutely. :)

In a few rare cases, if the usage pattern can exceed what the FSB on the Harpertown machines can do, then the Nehalem will be faster. Server uses have the potential, not much else. Hence it's primary goal (from some of what I recall reading), as stated by Intel: Server performance. ;) :p

True, true.

Yeah, I'd be totally wrong if MP's were used as servers. Heehe, I can just see a room full of a few hundred MacPros is a scientific cloud cluster serving up a few thousand virtual desktops. :D

[nanofrog]

True, true.

Yeah, I'd be totally wrong if MP's were used as servers. Heehe, I can just see a room full of a few hundred MacPros is a scientific cloud cluster serving up a few thousand virtual desktops. :D
Hmm... One x16 slot (assuming no 2nd graphics card for GPGPU work) for a single Fibre Channel card... vs. other models with 4 8x slots available.

Sure the MP's a better choice...Yeah right. :p